DYCIBITPce123:Professional Code of Ethics

GEMMA R. GIBAGAProfessor, College of

Computer Studies

Declaration:
This learning module is an exclusive property of Dr. Yanga’s Colleges, Inc., as an essential part of the
REIMAGINED Learning Program for the Academic Year 2020-2021, and shall only be used by and for
DYCIans. No part of this learning module shall be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, and/or sold, without the
consent of DYCI.
 <<Week No. 4>>
<< INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS>>

This module is intended to explore the most topical issue in the computing filed, that of
intellectual property. Computing technology, and specifically the internet, has transformed
the way intellectual property is distributed and consumed, raising a number of important
ethical, legal and professional questions. In particular, we shall be looking at what
constitutes intellectual property in the computing field and what legislation exists to protect
it.

At the end of this module, you are expected to:

Define Intellectual Property
Knowledge on copyright, patent and trademark law
Understand the application and implications of technical approaches to protecting
intellectual property

1
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY

Is a term used to describe works of the mind, such as art, books, films, formulas,
inventions, music and processes, that are distinct and “owned” or created by a single
person or group.

Nature of Intellectual Property

The rights to, among other things, the results of intellectual activity in the industrial,
scientific, literary or artistic fields.
Takes the form of intellectual objects, such as original music compositions, poems, novels,
inventions and product formulas
Intellectual objects are non-exclusive because many people can use them simultaneously
and their use by some does not preclude their use by others

Computing technology and intellectual property

Storage of all sorts of information in standard digitized formats.

High-volume, relatively inexpensive digital storage media, such as HD, CD-ROMs, and
DVDs
Character scanners and image scanners, which simplify converting printed text, photos,
and artwork to digitized electronic form.
Compression formats
The ease of copying
The ease of distributing digitized materials
The WWW, which makes it easy to find and download materials
Peer to peer technology, which permits the easy transfer and exchange of files

Key Areas of Intellectual Property legislation

Copyrights
Patents
Trademarks

2
 Copyright

 Can be used to protect literary, musical, dramatic, artistic, architectural, audio or

audio visual works from being reproduced without the permission of the copyright
holder.
 Means the right to make and distribute copies to perform or display the work in
public, and to produce derivative works, such as translation into other languages.
 Original, expression of an idea but not the idea itself
 Does not protect concept or principles
 Usually lasting for an author’s lifetime plus 70 yrs.
 Computer databases and programs that exhibit ‘ authorship’; that is, they contain
original expression of ideas.

Patents and patents protection

 Original, useful and non-obvious inventions such as mechanical processes and

designs or compositions of matter such as new pharmaceutical product.
 Patent designs or inventions are legally protected, and cannot be used by other
manufacturers without a license, or payment of royalties of the patent owner.
 Awarded for a period of 17 years and usually after this time the invention become
‘public domain’

 UK Patent 1977, requires the following conditions to be satisfied for a patent to be

granted:
 The invention is new
 It involves an inventive step
 It is capable of industrial application
 The patent Act 1977 states that anything that consists of the following is Not an
invention:
 A discovery, scientific theory or mathematical method
 A literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work or any aesthetic creation
 A scheme, rule or method in performing any mental act, playing a game or
doing business, or a program for a computer.
 The presentation of information

3
 criticism

News
comment
Reporting
Fair Use
Provision

Scholarship
and Teaching
Research

4
Trademarks and trademark protection

These are words, phases or symbols, which uniquely identify a product or service.
To qualify a trademark, the mark or name must be truly distinctive and, the names should
always be accompanied by the official trademark symbol.
A trademark is acquired when someone is either the first to use the mark publicly or
registers it with the Patent Office.

Violation of trademarks

Infringement – occurs when someone else uses the trademark in connection with the sale
of its goods or services.
Dilution – is applicable only to famous trademarks that are distinctive, of long duration,
and usually known to the public through extensive advertising and publicity. It is the result
of either blurring or tarnishment.
Blurring – occurs when the trademark is associated with dissimilar products
Tarnishment – occurs when the mark is portrayed in a negative compromising way or
associated with product or services of questionable value or reputation.

Fair Use provision

5
 Key intellectual property issue
Start here:
Plagiarism is the theft and passing off of someone’s ideas or words as one’s own.
Intellectual
Reverse Creation:
Engineering is the process of taking something apart in order to understand it,
build a copy of it, or improve it.
Suppose
OpenEngr. Sean Code
Source designs a cartowhich
refers uses a gas-saving
any program device
whose source which
code lessen
is made the gasoline
available for use or
consumption by ninety percent (90%), the paten
modification as users or other developers se fit.of the said inventions belomgs to Engr.
Sean. Competitive Intelligence is the gathering of legally obtainable information to help a
company gain an advantage over its rivals.
A painting mad by an artist;
Cybersquatting the registering of a domain name on the Internet in the hope of selling or
Bookslicensing
written by an author;
it at a profit to a person or entity who wishes to use it. If the domain name is
A logo designed
identical orby a student; similar to a trademark used by that person or entity, the owner of
confusingly
Programs written by has
the trademark programmers;
a cause of action against whoever registered and is holding on to the
Newsname.
articles;
Powerpoint presentations;
Theses and Dissertations.
Factors to consider include:
[G.R.Purpose
No. 148222,
of theAugust 15, 2003]
use (whether it is educational or commercial)
PEARL AND
Nature ofDEAN
the work(PHIL.) INCORPORATED,
being copied vs. SHOEMART,
(whether it is fictional, or factual news)
INCORPORATED, ET AL.
Amount of material being copied (whether the whole articles have been copied, or portions
of those articles, and whether students are able to make multiple copies)
Facts:The effect of copying will have on market for journal sales. Will it infringe the market for
the journals from which these articles are taken?
Pearl Has
and Dean (Phil.)been
permission Inc. sought
is a corporation
from the engaged in publishers
authors or the manufacture
of the of advertising
articles? In this instance,
display units simply referred to as light boxes. These units utilize specially
such permission must be granted for the use of any copyrighted material. printed posters
sandwiched between plastic sheets and illuminated display units. The advertising light
boxes were marketed under the trademark “Poster Ads”.

Sometime in 1985, Pearl and Dean negotiated with defendant-appellant Shoemart, Inc.
(SMI) for the lease and installation of the light boxes in SM City North Edsa. Since SM
City North Edsa was under construction at that time, SMI offered as an alternative, SM
Makati and SM Cubao, to which Pearl and Dean agreed. On September 11, 1985, Pearl and
Dean’s Genral Manager, Rodolfo Vergara, submitted for signature the contracts covering
SM Cubao and SM Makati to SMI’s Advertising promotions and Publicity Division
Manager, Ramonlito Abano. Only the contract for SM Makati, however, was returned
signed.

Two years later, SMI contracted with Metro Industril Services, the company formerly
contracted Pearl and Dean to fabiracte its display units. After its contract with Metro
6
 Industrial was terminated, SMI engaged in the services of EYD Rainbow advertising
Corporation to make the light boxes. Some 300 units were fabricated in 1991. These were
delivered on a staggered basis and installed in SM MEGAMALL and SM City.

In the light of its discoveries Pearl and Dean sent a letter dated December 11, 1991 to both
SMI and NEMI enjoining them to cease using the subject light boxes and to remove the
same from SMI’s establishments. It also demanded the discontinued use of the trademark
“Poster Ads”, and the payment to Pearl and Dean of compensatory damages in the amount
of Twenty Million pesos (Php 20,000,000.00).

Issues:

If the engineering or technical drawings of an advertising display unit (light box) are
granted copyright protection (copyright certificate of registration) by the National Library,
is the light box depicted in such engineering drawings by the fact itself also protected by
copyright?
Or should the light box be registered separately and protected by a patent issued by the
Bureau of Patents Trademark and Technology Transfer (now Intellectual Property Office)-
in addition to the copyright of the engineering drawings?
Can the owner of a registered trademark legally prevent others from using such trademark
if it is a mere abbreviation of term descriptive of his goods, services and business?
Ruling:

On the issue of Copyright Infringement

Petitioner P and ‘s complaint was that SMI infringed on its copyright over the light boxes
when SMI had the units manufactured by Metro and ETD Rainbow Advertising for its own
account. Obviously, petitioner’s position was premised on its belief that it copyright over
the engineering drawings extended ipso facto to the light boxes depicted or illustrated in
the said drawings. This premise was wrong for the following reasons:

Even as we find P and D indeed owned a valid copyright, the same could have referred
only to technical drawings within the category of “pictorial illustrations.” It could not have
possibly stretched out to include the underlying light box.

If SMI and NEMI reprinted P and D’s technical drawings for sale to the public without
license from P and D, then no doubt they would have been guilty of copyright

7
 Infringement. But this was not the case. SMI’s and NEMI’s acts complained of by P and D
were have units similar or identical to the light box illustrated in the technical drawings
manufactured by Metro and EYD Rainbow Advertising, for leasing out to different
advertisers. Was this an infringement of petitioner’s copyright over the technical drawings?
The Supreme Court (SC) said NO.

On the issue of Patent Infringement

If, despite its manufacturer and commercial use of the light boxes without license from
petitioner, private respondents cannot be held legally liable for infringement of P and D’s
copyright over its technical drawings of the said light boxes, should they be liable instead
for infringement of patent? We do not think so either.

For some reason or another, petitioner never secured a patent for the light boxes. It
therefore acquired no patent rights which could have protected its invention, if in fact it
really was. And because it had no patent, petitioner could not legally prevent anyone from
manufacturing or commercially using comtraption.

8
 Name: _____________________________________________ Rating: ________________
Year and Section:_____________ Professor / Instructor: __________________________
Due of Submission: _____________________________

<< Week No. 4>>

<< INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS>>

Start here:

Ms. A created a laboratory manual in Fundamentals of Programming for her class. A

printed the same in several copies and sell the same to his students for a profit. Mr. B,
father of student1 hired a typist to retype the same but he instructed the typist to change the
name of the author in each page from A to B. B, also a teacher sent the softcopy of the
manual to his students to print at least one (1) copy for each of them. B told his students
that as an author of the manual, “ I am authorizing you to photocopy the manual but don’t
change my name as an author.”

Can Ms. A sue Mr. B for copyright infringement?Why?

Are the students of mr. B guilty of plagiarism?Why?

Consider the given scenario, if student of Ms. A photocopied their manual, can they be
held liable for copyright infringement? Resaons?

9
Start here:

Duquenoy, P., Jones, S.Blundell, B. (2008). Ethical, Legal and Professional Issues in
Computing.
Lavina, C., Erise, M., Rebong, C., et.al. (2012). Ethics for I.T. Professionals with Legal
Aspects in Computing.
Reynolds, G. (2011). Principles of Ethics in Information Technology
Reynolds, G. (2007). Ethics in Information Technology

10